Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

4581Re: Incorporating uncertainties into ontologies...

Expand Messages
  • Alice
    May 31, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Keith,

      Sorry if this is blatantly obvious. It seems ontology efforts ignore existing solutions in the spectrum of knowledge organization systems. Scope Notes have long been a basic element of thesaurus construction and one of the things that, according to Z39.19, take thesauri beyond the simpler taxonomies. Scope Notes clarify how a term is to be interpreted for your project, if it could have another meaning in another context. Another differentiator, Related Terms also reflect intended meaning. And business rules for interpreting and applying the term to content for classification add another layer of control.

      As for the term selection, ultimately the person managing the vocabulary must make settle the squabble and make the decision. Good luck on that!

      Alice

      --- In TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com, Keipat Patkei <keipat1962@...> wrote:
      >
      > Thanks for reading this. I hope members of this community might be able to point me to some online responses related to how one goes about "incorporating uncertainties" into ontologies when domain experts are in disagreement regarding the terms, relationships, assertions, and so on that should be part of them.  How does one deal with this and does it lend itself to building "probabilistic ontologies?"  
      >
      > I'm sort of stuck in thinking that the general approach to handling this is through consensus building, governance, ontology mapping, use of thesauri, and, perhaps, leveraging PR-OWL (I have very limited knowledge of it, and I suspect it isn't applicable.)  Any thoughts on this?  I don't mind being told I'm way off base here.  Please advise and thanks to all.
      >
      > Keith DeWeese
      >
    • Show all 11 messages in this topic